TV ad said that Callaway irons 20 yd longer?

[iacas]

Hogan called the gap wedge the "Equalizer", others call it an approach wedge, attack wedge, gap wedge and I think Ping calls it a utility wedge.  That seems confusing to me too.

Good to see the old "reach for straws when your argument's shot down" approach.

I don't know anyone who calls their driver their 10.25° club, and as I said above, in irons, it is clearly a foreign concept. All your idea does is replace one number (i.e. "7") with another.

If I have a set with a PW that's 46* I might want a "gap wedge" that's 52*, if my sets PW is 44* I might want a gap wedge that's 50*.  IMO it would be easier to just know the lofts on the clubs to determine what wedge set fits best for each iron set rather than having to memorize or look up the specs.

That seems like an awfully dumb way to fit your gaps. You should do it the way most people do it - by how far you hit the clubs. Again, the loft is but one piece of that puzzle.

In other words, we clearly disagree on the utility of stamping lofts on irons. As it's off the topic of this thread, you're free to start your own, but there's no need to further discuss it here. Thanks.

[Spitfisher]

"not that much more" complicated may be true ... but that certainly isn't "less" complicated.  So, again, I ask ... why???

I've explained why in previous posts, imo, there's value in additional information.   My car requires 93 octane, so I have to go to gas stations that lists octane values which for you might seem unnecessary since regular, plus and super is good enough for you.

Your both right, however the thread is about calloway's claim of a possible 20 yard gain ( under certain conditions) in order to under stand how they are getting to that sort of juiced distance, loft numbers would be helpful.  BUT as far as once purchased, normal iron numbers will be fine for the end user to cover XXX yards of distance.

[iacas]

Your both right, however the thread is about calloway's claim of a possible 20 yard gain ( under certain conditions) in order to under stand how they are getting to that sort of juiced distance, loft numbers would be helpful.  BUT as far as once purchased, normal iron numbers will be fine for the end user to cover XXX yards of distance.

And of course you can get that information prior to purchase. For these clubs, it's in post #21 . :)

[turtleback]

Good to see the old "reach for straws when your argument's shot down" approach.

I don't know anyone who calls their driver their 10.25° club, and as I said above, in irons, it is clearly a foreign concept. All your idea does is replace one number (i.e. "7") with another.

That seems like an awfully dumb way to fit your gaps. You should do it the way most people do it - by how far you hit the clubs. Again, the loft is but one piece of that puzzle.

In other words, we clearly disagree on the utility of stamping lofts on irons. As it's off the topic of this thread, you're free to start your own, but there's no need to further discuss it here. Thanks.

And, IMO, this IS on-topic because it is by breaking the pre-existing relatively constant and standard relationship between an iron's number and its loft that Callaway and the other clubmakers are being deceptive in their claim and advertisements.

Because it really is not nearly as sexy to claim that this year's 23 degree iron is longer than last year's 25 degree iron as it is to claim that this year's 5 iron is longer than last year's 5-iron.

This kind of deception has been at the heart of club marketing and is based precisely on making sure people don't know what a club number means so that the uncertainty can be used to deceive.  Callaway can only make the claim that is the subject of this thread by using exactly that deception.  You and I and lots of folks on this board may know enough to see through the deception but it doesn't make it any less of a deception - and therefore worthy of discussion under this thread title.

[Golfingdad]

And, IMO, this IS on-topic because it is by breaking the pre-existing relatively constant and standard relationship between an iron's number and its loft that Callaway and the other clubmakers are being deceptive in their claim and advertisements.

Because it really is not nearly as sexy to claim that this year's 23 degree iron is longer than last year's 25 degree iron as it is to claim that this year's 5 iron is longer than last year's 5-iron.

This kind of deception has been at the heart of club marketing and is based precisely on making sure people don't know what a club number means so that the uncertainty can be used to deceive.  Callaway can only make the claim that is the subject of this thread by using exactly that deception.  You and I and lots of folks on this board may know enough to see through the deception but it doesn't make it any less of a deception - and therefore worthy of discussion under this thread title.

But how do you explain it when the 23 degree iron goes longer AND higher than the 25 degree iron?  Erik's said it a few times and nobody else seems to be listening ... loft is not the only factor in distance, so it's actually not that they are simply trying to deceive anybody.  They're not just stamping a 4 on a 3 iron and selling it to you like that.

[iacas]

And, IMO, this IS on-topic because it is by breaking the pre-existing relatively constant and standard relationship between an iron's number and its loft that Callaway and the other clubmakers are being deceptive in their claim and advertisements.

Because it really is not nearly as sexy to claim that this year's 23 degree iron is longer than last year's 25 degree iron as it is to claim that this year's 5 iron is longer than last year's 5-iron.

That wasn't the topic being discussed. You're free to discuss HOW Callaway is doing this. (Hint: it's more than just stronger lofts.)

The OT stuff that was being discussed was the utility (or lack thereof) in stamping the loft on the sole in place of the number. It was not discussing marketing claims or "false advertising" or "trickery" or Callaway's clubs.

As you know, and likely appreciate, we keep threads here on topic. This one was wandering away from Callaway's new irons and into "we should do this for EVERY club" territory.

[No Mulligans]

FWIW, I just had a lesson at noon today and my instructor said, "I've got a treat for you, try this brand new Callaway model".

I had been hitting my current Callaway RAZR 7 iron during the lesson.  With this new Callaway 7 iron I hit appreciably higher and longer than my current 7 iron.  For me, I'd say about 15 yards, from 145 with my current club to 160 with the new model.  I want to emphasize that the trajectory was similar to my current 7 iron, it went higher because the ball was coming off the club face hotter.

It was a little bit lighter and had less sensation going to the hands as the club made contact with the ball, that really sweet feeling like when I hit the sweet spot with my current club... but I'm pretty sure I wasn't consistently hitting the dead center of the club face.  This felt like a really forgiving club.  The comparison made earlier in the thread to a hybrid makes sense in the way the club felt to me.

[Lihu]

FWIW, I just had a lesson at noon today and my instructor said, "I've got a treat for you, try this brand new Callaway model".

I had been hitting my current Callaway RAZR 7 iron during the lesson.  With this new Callaway 7 iron I hit appreciably higher and longer than my current 7 iron.  For me, I'd say about 15 yards, from 145 with my current club to 160 with the new model.  I want to emphasize that the trajectory was similar to my current 7 iron, it went higher because the ball was coming off the club face hotter.

It was a little bit lighter and had less sensation going to the hands as the club made contact with the ball, that really sweet feeling like when I hit the sweet spot with my current club... but I'm pretty sure I wasn't consistently hitting the dead center of the club face.  This felt like a really forgiving club.  The comparison made earlier in the thread to a hybrid makes sense in the way the club felt to me.

Nice.

[turtleback]

As you know, and likely appreciate, we keep threads here on topic. This one was wandering away from Callaway's new irons and into "we should do this for EVERY club" territory.

Hopefully this is.

Callaway claims irons are 20 yards longer.  To which I essentially respond, that is because they are comparing apples and oranges.  Yes I know loft is not the only factor, the other major factor is length.  3 things contribute to the added length - less loft, longer length, and "other stuff".

I doubt all their other "other stuff" improvements amount to a hill of beans.  If the other stuff could contribute significant distance they would not have had to use loft/length to increase distance.  IMO the other stuff is just to give them something to talk about in the ads.  I would be very interested if anyone had any data that would allow us to break down that added distance between how much is due to loft, how much is due to length, and how much is due to all the marketing junk they are talking about instead of admitting they fudged with loft and length to get there..

Because here is the dirty little secret they aren't mentioning and neither is anyone else.  Stamping a 7 on what has always been a 6 iron does not magically imbue that club with the accuracy of a 7 iron.  SO what it boils down to is they are saying "you want to hit your 7 iron farther?  OK, we'll stamp a 6 iron with a 7 on it, make a few relatively cosmetic design changes so we can attribute the extra distance to THAT, and there you go."

"Hey, Joe, ever since I got these new irons I can hit 7 iron on #8 - I used to have to hit 6-iron."

"Has it helped you"

"Well I don't hit the green any more often than I used to but boy is that extra distance nice."

Stamping a 6 iron with a 7 may give you more distance but it still gives you 6-iron accuracy, not 7-iron accuracy.  And if a player only cares about 6-iron distance and doesn't care that he isn't getting 7-iron accuracy, then why not just keep the old clubs and hit the 6 iron.  Or are we supposed to believe that the new technology can make a 6 iron as accurate as a 7 iron?

Wouldn't it be interesting to get a set of irons with all of the modern technological improvements but with the old traditional lofts and lengths?  THAT would give us a true picture of how much of the marketing mumbo jumbo about distance is for real.  And they should be super duper accurate. If the technology DID make a NT (new technology) 7-iron as accurate as an OT (old technology) 6-iron, imagine the laser-like accuracy you would get if you used this new technology on a club that already has 7-iron accuracy.  Your clubs should be super accurate at that point.  I doubt that would be the observed result.

There may be a lot of reasons to buy these clubs.  But buying them for the distance seems like a fool's game to me.

At the risk of going OT again, and in the interests of fairness, I'll just add that Callaway is not the only clubmaker that indulges in deceptive advertising.

[Archie Bunker]

I can hear the TV announcers saying soon... "Wow - he hit that new Callaway 7-iron 200 yards!" Makes a lot of the general buying public think their current irons are obsolete.

[Lihu]

I can hear the TV announcers saying soon... "Wow - he hit that new Callaway 7-iron 200 yards!" Makes a lot of the general buying public think their current irons are obsolete.

6i.

[iacas]

I doubt all their other "other stuff" improvements amount to a hill of beans.

Probably one of the reasons you're not a club designer, then, eh? Callaway (or anyone with the basic knowledge) could build a club that's two degrees weaker that flies farther than the stronger lofted club (in fact, they claim to have done that with this set of clubs, as we'll get into in a bit…).

There's more to how high or far a ball is hit than static loft.

That's one of the reasons why, in the OT conversation, I said that loft would be a silly number to stamp on a club.

Players can easily look up the lofts of the irons they're purchasing PRIOR to purchasing them if they want. Is it deceptive marketing? Probably somewhat, sure. But if people want to fall for it, well, so be it. I think the market's about to crap out on TaylorMade/Callaway a little bit. Consumers aren't ALL stupid (a sucker may be born every minute, but so are 266 other people, so the odds are in favor of the consumer not being a total sucker :D).

Why am I typing so much given that I couldn't care less about these super game improvement type clubs. I just get a little tired of people thinking that loft is almost all that matters, then going on mini rants about it how we're all being deceived by the big bad golf companies. Enough that I've got a little rant of my own.

I've told this story and will tell it again. The Titleist MB/CB clubs a few years ago were able to be matched at ANY club in the set. If you wanted to cross over from CB to MB at the 5-iron, you could, seamlessly. Same at the 6I, 7I, 8I, or 9I. The CBs were 2° stronger lofted. How? Lower CG launched the ball higher. The clubs launched at almost exactly the same angles, and flew as far. (The current CBs and MBs have the same lofts, with the CG a bit higher in the CBs than in years past, I believe.)

@saevel25 hit some strongly lofted irons that launched the ball WAY up in the air. Reviewed them somewhere, too, so you can look those up. TaylorMade SLDR irons, I believe. SUPER high launching compared to the weaker lofted irons he normally plays.

Did you know that the hosel is in lead deflection at impact in virtually all clubs swung anywhere near properly? If you were to put a slightly softer shaft in an iron and you can easily make up a degree of stronger loft. Lower the CG and you can reduce backspin AND launch the ball even higher .

Let's look at some of Callaway's "fine print." It's right here: post #21 .

Their 4-irons and 6-irons measure 22° /28° and 20.5°/ 26° - two degrees or less difference between the same club, and the club that goes "as far" as the other is actually 4° weaker. Never mind that the "as-long-as-a-4-iron" Big Bertha 6-iron is actually over half an inch (0.625") shorter than the RAZR X HL 4-iron! So… a weaker (4°) and shorter (0.625") new 6-iron goes as far as the old 4-iron.

So where, pray tell, are they getting the added distance if it's from a club that's not only SHORTER but WEAKER if not for the "other stuff" you assume amounts to a hill of beans?

I think that makes my point a little, so the rest of the comments will be comparatively short… And the crowd cheers!

If the other stuff could contribute significant distance they would not have had to use loft/length to increase distance.

Perhaps they're stronger lofted so players, many of whom already flip, don't launch their 7-irons to the freaking moon, given that the CG is probably pretty low and such. Or perhaps "hit your clubs 1.67 clubs longer!" didn't have the marketing appeal of a full two-club difference, so they tweaked the loft 1.5° or so relative to the same club #?

Because here is the dirty little secret they aren't mentioning and neither is anyone else.  Stamping a 7 on what has always been a 6 iron does not magically imbue that club with the accuracy of a 7 iron.  SO what it boils down to is they are saying "you want to hit your 7 iron farther?  OK, we'll stamp a 6 iron with a 7 on it, make a few relatively cosmetic design changes so we can attribute the extra distance to THAT, and there you go."

As you know, the advertising says two clubs or 20 yards. Average golfers don't hit their 6-iron 20 yards farther than their 7-iron.

The X HL 6-iron has 28° loft. The BB 7-iron has… 30°. Clearly they've not just stamped a 7 on a club with a 6-iron loft.

P.S. The current Titleist MB? 31° loft. But again, there's a lot more to it than the static loft. CG plays a big role, as do other things.

Stamping a 6 iron with a 7 may give you more distance but it still gives you 6-iron accuracy, not 7-iron accuracy.  And if a player only cares about 6-iron distance and doesn't care that he isn't getting 7-iron accuracy, then why not just keep the old clubs and hit the 6 iron.  Or are we supposed to believe that the new technology can make a 6 iron as accurate as a 7 iron?

It can be more accurate. I already covered the "6/7 iron stamping" stuff above; the 7-iron is still two degrees weaker than the 6-iron to which they're comparing. To be quick about it, I see it every day: players who launch the ball closer to a rough "ideal" for their ball speed (etc.) gain accuracy and hit fewer squirrely shots or shots that behave oddly in flight.

Wouldn't it be interesting to get a set of irons with all of the modern technological improvements but with the old traditional lofts and lengths?

Why? You'd hit the darn things straight up in the air. You'd see a player hit what you think was a pitching wedge and the club would say "6" on the bottom.

There may be a lot of reasons to buy these clubs.  But buying them for the distance seems like a fool's game to me.

Generally speaking, if you could engineer a club with 26° loft and 37.875" length that travels AS FAR as a club with 22° loft and 38.5" length, the first club will be more accurate.

In this case, the first club - the one with 4° more loft AND a shorter shaft - is the Big Bertha, the club being talked about here.

---

Long story short:

• There's way, way more to a club's launch angle, height, and distance than static loft. Way more.
• There's way, way more to a club's total distance than the length of the shaft, too.
• Club manufacturers are guilty of building longer, stronger clubs to satisfy marketing claims.
• At the same time, people are overly harsh and overly quick IMO to "blame" them for "deceptive" marketing (etc.) for doing this, when there are often very real engineering reasons for the stronger lofts.
• Longer clubs these days, though, I'm calling nearly 100% marketing, as I don't see any engineering reasons a modern 5- or 6-iron should be the length of a 1970s 2-iron.

[mvmac]

I doubt all their other "other stuff" improvements amount to a hill of beans.  If the other stuff could contribute significant distance they would not have had to use loft/length to increase distance.  IMO the other stuff is just to give them something to talk about in the ads.  I would be very interested if anyone had any data that would allow us to break down that added distance between how much is due to loft, how much is due to length, and how much is due to all the marketing junk they are talking about instead of admitting they fudged with loft and length to get there..

Erik covered this pretty thoroughly, I'll just add another example. Remember the the RocketBallz fairway woods and how they went further than most fairways on the market? They didn't fudge with loft or length (if anything they made the lofts weaker), they made the faces more flexible, more trampoline effect. Callaway has added that technology into these irons, not to the same extent because they're irons and not woods but it helps increase ball speed.

The other stuff matters.

I can hear the TV announcers saying soon... "Wow - he hit that new Callaway 7-iron 200 yards!" Makes a lot of the general buying public think their current irons are obsolete.

The pros won't be playing these irons, they're designed for the average golfer.

I've told this story and will tell it again. The Titleist MB/CB clubs a few years ago were able to be matched at ANY club in the set. If you wanted to cross over from CB to MB at the 5-iron, you could, seamlessly. Same at the 6I, 7I, 8I, or 9I. The CBs were 2° stronger lofted. How? Lower CG launched the ball higher. The clubs launched at almost exactly the same angles, and flew as far. (The current CBs and MBs have the same lofts, with the CG a bit higher in the CBs than in years past, I believe.)

Good example.

[golf-noob-bruce]

"The pros won't be playing these irons, they're designed for the average golfer" @mvmac Given how important distance is and assuming Callaway truly have introduced a game changer, why wouldn't pros take advantage of it?

[saevel25]

"The pros won't be playing these irons, they're designed for the average golfer"

@mvmac Given how important distance is and assuming Callaway truly have introduced a game changer, why wouldn't pros take advantage of it?

Game Improvement irons are built on strong lofts, but low CG and lower spin. Really, you don't need extra distance on irons because you are just going to have to add more wedges on the bottom side.

So lets say their current clubs end with a 48 degree pitching wedge, and that goes 135 yards. Lets say the games are 10 yards, and that means his longest iron would go 215 yards.

Now lets say that they switch to some GI clubs. The issue happens when you get a pitching wedge that is now 4 degrees stronger, and that will probably create a too large gap from their next wedge. This is why you see GI clubs generally have a "gap" wedge of some sort.

So they added more distance, yet they still need to add a new club to cover the gap. This means they need to loose a club on the top end. So they really never see the extra distance because of the club limits. So they might still average something like 145 - 220 yards. The gaps might change a bit, maybe they are 11 yards per club. Yet you now have a huge gap between the wedge and the new PW.

Also, on well struck golf balls game improvement irons really don't go that much farther than more blade-ish irons. The distance benefits are primarily on off center hits. Pro's are really really good at hitting the ball in the center of the clubface.

The primary reason GI clubs are created is because amateurs struggle with getting proper gaps in the mid to long irons. This is why a lot of companies are doing progressive sets now. They don't really struggle with a more blade-ish wedge. Heck a lot of amateurs can hit other brand wedges that don't have much game improvement characteristics at all. I see a lot of golfers with Titleist or Cleveland wedges. Yet they struggle greatly as the irons get longer.

[mvmac]

"The pros won't be playing these irons, they're designed for the average golfer"

@mvmac Given how important distance is and assuming Callaway truly have introduced a game changer, why wouldn't pros take advantage of it?

You might see some guys put in a 4/5 iron, Brian Gay plays a SpeedBladz 4 iron but here's a few reasons why you won't see tour players playing this set:

- It's not an iron they can hit different trajectories. Pros typically launch their long irons high and "flight" their shorter irons. These irons are designed to get the ball UP in the air.

- They need to be very precise with their distance control. The BB's "hot" faces aren't going to be consistent enough for the pros.

- Most pros don't need help hitting their irons higher.

- It would be really hard to put together a functional set. There would be an issue with gapping between each iron and with the wedges. Pro's pitching wedges are around 47 degrees. So you would have the BB PW that goes as long (or longer) than their current 9 iron. They also wouldn't play the BB PW because they don't want a club that launches higher than their lob wedge. The set would basically look like this, driver, fairway, BB 4-9 (no hybrid), Apex Pro 8-PW, 54, 60 degree wedges.

- The look of the iron at address is not something they're use to.

[Lihu]

Really good information @iacas , @mvmac and @saevel25 .

So, I suppose the static loft is really irrelevant because of the hosel generally being in lead deflection. Makes sense. This just means that club fitting is way more important than I thought.

[saevel25]

Really good information @iacas, @mvmac and @saevel25.

So, I suppose the static loft is really irrelevant because of the hosel generally being in lead deflection. Makes sense. This just means that club fitting is way more important than I thought.

It is, in the fact that it is good to get fitted so you are not adapting your swing to something you don't want to happen. Like when I played those SLDR, my swing probably adjusted more and more to try to keep them from going higher than I wanted. Yet if I play my normal irons, I don't have to worry about that.

In the end you can play golf with a wide range of irons. I am sure some people have flight tendencies they like.